Fifer, William v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Joint Motion to Remand to Social Security. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/24/15. (jat)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WILLIAM FIFER, Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. 14-cv-636-jdp CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. The parties have filed a motion for remand under sentence four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. The motion will be granted. On remand, plaintiff William Fifer will be provided the opportunity to submit additional evidence and arguments, and to appear for a hearing. Additionally, on remand, the Administrative Law Judge will: (1) proceed through the sequential evaluation process and determine whether plaintiff had substantial gainful activity during the relevant time period; (2) reevaluate the entire record, including the treatment history; (3) comply with Social Security Ruling 96-7p and reevaluate plaintiff’s credibility regarding the nature and limiting effects of his alleged impairments; (4) weigh all the medical opinions of record, as well as the opinion of Steven Immerman, MD, dated August 1, 2014; (5) address plaintiff’s diagnosis of colorectal cancer in 2012 to determine whether that diagnosis was a medically determinable impairment during the period at issue, and if so consider whether it, alone or in combination with other determinable impairments, meets or medically equals a listed impairment, including Listing 13.18; (6) if necessary, reevaluate plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; (7) if necessary, use Social Security Ruling 13-2p to evaluate whether alcohol abuse was a material factor to disability; and (8) issue a new decision. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further action as outlined above. Entered April 24, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?